Evidence of meeting #185 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women's.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Wanda Morris  Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer, Canadian Association for Retired Persons
Ann Decter  Director, Community Initiatives, Canadian Women's Foundation
Fay Faraday  Co-Chair, Equal Pay Coalition
Janet Borowy  Co-Chair, Equal Pay Coalition
Philip Cross  Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Leona Irons  Executive Director, National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association
Andrea Doucet  Canada Research Chair in Gender, Work and Care, Professor of Sociology, Women's and Gender Studies, Brock University, As an Individual
Kim Rudd  Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
Blake Richards  Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Peter Fragiskatos  London North Centre, Lib.
Martha Durdin  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Credit Union Association
Toby Sanger  Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness
Nancy Peckford  National Spokesperson and Executive Director, Equal Voice
Bill Schaper  Director, Public Policy, Imagine Canada
Suki Beavers  Project Director, National Association of Women and the Law
Diana Sarosi  Policy Manager, Oxfam Canada

8:50 a.m.


The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We'll call the meeting to order.

We're starting our first set of witnesses beyond the department. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the subject matter of Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018, and other measures.

Welcome, witnesses.

We'll start with the Canadian Association for Retired Persons, Ms. Morris.

8:50 a.m.

Wanda Morris Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer, Canadian Association for Retired Persons

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Wanda Morris, and I am the Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer for CARP.

CARP comprises over 300,000 members and 20 chapters across the country. Our members are politically engaged, 98% of them voted in the last federal election, and in our most recent poll, 98% said they would be voting in the next one.

Canadians can be justly proud of our banks. While other countries suffered severe economic fallout from the collapse of their financial institutions, Canada's stood strong. Banking customers have benefited from the security, and anyone who has owned bank stocks knows that bank investors have done well too.

However, this strength comes at a cost to consumers. Checks and balances are needed, and CARP is pleased to see that this draft legislation addresses a number of important issues, such as whistle-blower protections, increased maximum fines and the prohibition of the use of the ombudsman title for internal bank staff.

CARP proposes to focus on one key issue in its submission today. Right now, 70% of banking customers do not have access to a fair and impartial ombuds office in the event of a complaint. This is not right. When the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments was originally created, all banking and investment dispute resolutions were done under one roof. A previous government opened up the possibility of a for-profit alternative. Since ADRBO was then approved as competition to OBSI, consumer confidence has plummeted.

I want to be very clear on my next point. CARP and its coalition of consumer agencies, and our full membership, believe competition in dispute resolution is not fair, is not right, and furthermore, is an election issue. The only voices in favour of competition for dispute resolution services are those of the banks.

CARP conducted a recent and robust poll with members across the country on the ombuds question. Some 94% support one single not-for-profit ombuds office. CARP members, and seniors in general know, as frankly all reasonable people should know, that having a bank “buy its own referee” is fundamentally unfair. More than one-third of banking disputes come from seniors, but whatever the age of the complainant, these disputes are a David and Goliath issue.

Ordinary Canadians simply do not have anything like the power of the banks, with their enormous resources, to fight for their rights. This puts Canadian consumers at a tremendous disadvantage and it should not be so.

I encourage the committee to reference the analysis conducted by FAIR Canada, the Canadian Foundation for the Advancement of Investor Rights, entitled “Comparing OBSI to ADRBO (2018)”. FAIR has created a compelling chart highlighting the differences between OBSI and ADRBO. FAIR's analysis makes clear that customers whose banks use ADRBO for dispute resolution are served less well in terms of governance, transparency and results. OBSI appears to find results in favour of customers at 2.77 times that of the rate of ADRBO.

Investor advocates recognize this disparity, and it is clear that banks do as well. Since its initial adoption by TD and Royal Bank, other banks have moved from the non-profit OBSI to the for profit ADRBO, with Scotiabank being the latest bank to leave. Banks have suggested they are leaving due to timeliness or effectiveness issues at OBSI. Research comparing the two dispute resolvers contradict this claim, as have independent reviews done in 2011 and 2016.

Canadian bank consumers should have the same protections they used to have, that all Canadian investors have, and that all comparator jurisdictions have, like Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and Ireland.

Allowing competition from a for-profit provider has created a clear conflict of interest, an incentive to resolve disputes in favour of the party to the dispute that is paying the bill, the bank. This isn't conjecture. This is actually happening.

While we might criticize banks for using a dispute resolver that reduces their claims and costs, in a competitive marketplace the flaw is not with the banks, but with the system that allows this flawed process to exist. This matter can be fixed with the stroke of a pen. It does not require legislative change.

CARP calls upon the finance committee to recommend changes to regulations to ensure that all Canadian banking consumers have access to one independent, fair, impartial not-for-profit dispute resolver. There is already one such dispute resolver for investment firms: OBSI. OBSI should also be the single firm used for banking customers.

I'm happy to take your questions.

8:55 a.m.


The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, Ms. Morris.

We're turning to the Canadian Women's Foundation, with Ms. Decter, Director of Community Initiatives.

Go ahead, Ann.

8:55 a.m.

Ann Decter Director, Community Initiatives, Canadian Women's Foundation

Good morning. I'm Ann Decter from the Canadian Women's Foundation, and I thank you for the invitation to speak to you today on behalf of the foundation with regard to Bill C-86.

The Canadian Women's Foundation is Canada's only public foundation dedicated to women and girls. We fund grassroots women's organizations and women-serving community programs and invest in building the women's sector through knowledge mobilization, networking, collaboration and advocacy.

We were pleased to see key commitments to women's equality in the 2018 federal budget, and we welcome the next steps on those commitments in Bill C-86. I will be speaking to three of them.

Among its myriad provisions, Bill C-86 will establish the department of women and gender equality, transforming Status of Women Canada into a department. We celebrate the retention of “women” in the name of the department, thus ensuring the link is maintained to historic milestones like the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, which in the early 1970s made recommendations that are still on our wish list.

When we talk about women's equality, we are talking about equality for the majority of the population. Our recent research on the state of women's equality in Canada indicates that violence against women, economic security and gendered reconciliation and decolonization are key priorities to advance gender equality in this country.

Approaches needed to advance equality for women, who make up slightly over half the population and, notwithstanding the grumblings of premiers, have the overriding protection of charter rights, may differ greatly from approaches that would advance the much smaller population identified in the act as “gender-diverse”, who lack charter protections while often facing social persecution on a daily basis.

We encourage the minister for women and gender equality, as she will soon be, to examine the question of what structures are needed both inside and outside of government to ensure the government remains on a dynamic path towards women and gender equity and equality.

Our submission to the 2018 federal budget consultation called for intersectional gender-based budgeting across all federal departments. We recommended that Status of Women Canada establish a gender-budgeting plus resource centre funded and mandated to embed intersectional gender-based analysis across the federal government.

Our reading of the broad strokes of the Canadian gender budgeting act is consistent with this approach. We welcome it and recommend that the new department for women and gender equality be placed on a growth plan and its budget on a path of significant annual increases to ensure its leadership capacity in this area.

We agree wholeheartedly with the preamble to this act that “Canada's long-term economic success depends on an inclusive society in which all individuals have the ability to contribute to their full potential” and note that women became the majority of university graduates in 1990 and have now surpassed men in education across the population. The Canadian economy needs women, and that means all women.

The Canadian Women's Foundation welcomes the introduction of proactive pay equity legislation. We fully support our colleagues from the pay equity coalition, who are experts on this issue, and you will hear from them today.

I have a few quick points.

For unionized women, it's good. The legislation supports them to advocate for their pay equity rights and for their unions to negotiate pay equity plans. The non-union worker, however, is on her own. She may find it difficult to comprehend, and the act lacks any provision for a legal support centre to assist her.

The opening clause includes “the diverse needs of employers” in the purpose language. This could give employers' needs precedence instead of centring on the needs of women in federally regulated workplaces.

This act is silent on pay transparency. Disclosure of pay practices goes to the heart of compliance and needs to be added here or in accompanying legislation.

We look forward to corrections to these issues in the pay equity act and to implementation of this important legislation.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

9 a.m.


The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, Ms. Decter.

We now turn to the Equal Pay Coalition by video conference from Toronto.

Ms. Borowy and Ms. Faraday, the floor is yours.

9 a.m.

Fay Faraday Co-Chair, Equal Pay Coalition

Thank you.

The Equal Pay Coalition represents 44 different associations, businesses, professional women, unionized women, non-union women and community groups across the province of Ontario. We also coordinate a broader pay equity network on the federal level that includes 134 women's groups from coast to coast to coast. We make the representations on behalf of them.

While the pay equity legislation that is in Bill C-86 is an important first step, there are a number of amendments that need to be made to the legislation if it is actually to be effective in protecting women's rights. I want to anchor the amendments in a number of key principles that should guide you in that amendment process.

The first is that pay equity is a fundamental human right. This is not an option. This is not something that is good to have. It is a fundamental international human rights commitment that Canada signed onto in the ILO convention 100 in 1972. In addition, it is a protected right under the Canadian charter.

Eradicating the pay equity gap is, then, a mandatory human rights obligation, and the pay equity legislation must increase the efforts to close the gap. It must strengthen and not weaken or undercut them. Those are key principles.

As well, under section 2(d) of the charter, workers have the constitutional right to union representation in the workplace, so active union participation must be a key part of the legislation. Also, the legislation must be attentive to current problems with the fissuring workplace if it's to be effectively enforced.

I'm going to identify some key amendments that need to be made.

One is the amendment to the purpose clause, which you've heard.

Making fundamental human rights subject to the “diverse needs of employers” fundamentally undercuts the legislation, and it is absolutely unprecedented in Canadian human rights legislation. That must go. That's non-negotiable.

In addition, you need to have a definition of “employer” that encompasses the fissured workplace that exists right now. What that means is capturing all the contracting out and subcontracting that allows employers to distance themselves from rights violations. That is missing in the legislation.

As well, there are a number of provisions you've included in the legislation that have already been found to be unconstitutional.

With some of those in fact the legislation actually gives less protection in some areas than the Canadian Human Rights Act currently does. For example, it has less protection in the compensation for part-time and temporary workers than currently exists.

It also prevents women from having access to the broader human rights protection under section 7 and section 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Also, the pay equity act does not close all the different gaps in compensation that are discriminatory. Access to those broader protections is absolutely critical.

You've included in this legislation provisions around retroactivity that the—

9:05 a.m.


The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Can I get you to slow down a little bit? We have translators here trying to keep up with you.

9:05 a.m.

Co-Chair, Equal Pay Coalition

Fay Faraday

Okay. There's lots to say in the legislation. We will give you written submissions.

You've also included provisions that are unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court just struck down in May of this year, dealing with blocking retroactive pay for gaps that have been identified.

My colleague will identify some other missing pieces.

9:05 a.m.

Janet Borowy Co-Chair, Equal Pay Coalition

Thanks very much, Fay.

We look forward to your questions.

This is a very dense, very technical piece of legislation.

Let me just finish our five minutes of comments with reference to major building blocks that are missing from the legislation currently. These building blocks were outlined in the 2004 task force report called the Bilson report. They are the following.

First, the task force called for an intersectional analysis of female-dominated groups so that the depths of the gender pay gap could be identified. That's missing.

Second, there are no provisions in this bill currently for women in female-dominated workplaces who do not have access to a male comparator. That needs to be fixed and not left to regulation.

Third, the task force called for a specialized stand-alone pay equity commission and a pay equity hearings tribunal. That is not in the legislation.

Fourth, as Ms. Decter mentioned, there are no provisions as recommended for non-union women. What I'm speaking to here is with respect to access to a legal support centre that was recommended by Bilson and not in the legislation.

Finally, we had fully anticipated to see a very robust legislative and statutory mechanism dealing with pay transparency. This was promised in the budget in February and it's completely missing from this piece of legislation, and our question is why.

We look forward to your questions.

9:05 a.m.


The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much.

Next is Mr. Philip Cross, Senior Fellow, with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Welcome. The floor is yours, Mr. Cross.

9:05 a.m.

Philip Cross Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute

Thank you. I always appreciate the opportunity to address the finance committee, and particularly today I embrace my role as the token economist. I think economists should always address the finance committee.

You're going to hear a lot about social policy this morning, which is all well and good, but it is worth remembering that during financial crises such as in 2008 or government fiscal crises such as gripped Greece in 2015, social policy was quickly put aside for the larger imperatives of stabilizing the economy and government finances. We cannot take the latter goals for granted, but we must always keep in mind the need to create the conditions where growth and prosperity can flourish.

October's turbulence in global financial markets was a reminder—almost 10 years to the day after the full-scale eruption of the great financial crisis—that the business cycle will never be tamed no matter how much governments manipulate monetary and fiscal policy and regulation. A recent cover story in The Economist asked how bad the next recession will be. This is not scaremongering, just an acknowledgement that the business cycle will always be part of market-based economies. Given the inevitability of recessions, governments should adopt policies that reflect this reality.

The risks in the global economy are escalating with trade wars, high debt levels in China, banking instability in Italy and so on. One cannot predict the incident that will provoke a repricing of risk in financial markets, but the end of the experiment with zero or even negative interest rates will be disruptive. Turbulence in the global economy favours nations that take out some insurance against these risks through high savings, budget surpluses and structural reforms to boost long-term growth.

Canada today is not one of those nations. ln fact we have become one of the most indebted nations in the world, while our productivity has fallen steadily as business investment lags.

lt is short-sighted to be running a fiscal deficit nine years into an expansion. Past experience with the business cycle and the current fragility of global financial markets suggests that the next recession will be sooner rather than later. Therefore, it would be prudent to keep some margin of fiscal stimulus in reserve for when it will make a difference. Most studies find the fiscal multiplier is much higher during recessions than when the economy is growing.

There is no reason for Canada to be smug about its fiscal condition. The overall picture of government indebtedness in Canada is as bad as in the EU or the U.S., and the outlook is deteriorating with the rapid aging of our population.

The auditors general of both New Brunswick and Newfoundland have declared their finances on an unsustainable track, with analysts openly speculating when these provinces will default and go bankrupt. The fiscal problems of Newfoundland and New Brunswick today are a reminder of the severe fiscal challenges facing most provinces. The federal government cannot ignore these incipient fiscal crises, as a provincial bankruptcy inevitably will require federal aid.

The fiscal struggles of these provinces have many causes, but a prime contributor was large energy investments that went wrong. This is a reminder of the fundamental importance of energy to Canada. lt is our largest industry in terms of GDP and our leading export, and by itself it accounts for nearly half of business investment. Without reliable and low-cost energy, people cannot thrive in Canada's immense, cold and dark land mass.

What does Canada have to show for all this debt? lt certainly has not bought higher growth. Since the 2008-09 recession, three times Canada has briefly reached year-over-year growth of 4%, raising hopes that recovery was reaching take-off speed. Instead, each time growth subsided to below 2%. The same thing is working out now, with the Bank of Canada forecasting real growth of 2% for 2018, not much more than population growth of 1.4%.

Slow growth has persisted despite unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus, both here and throughout the major industrial nations. At some point policy-makers must admit the ineffectiveness of these policies and the futility of continually applying them.

As long advocated by the Bank for International Settlements, better policy would have focused on increasing the determinants of long-term growth. Many of these policies would not cost the taxpayers a cent, such as expediting the approval of pipelines, reducing interprovincial trade barriers and having less regulation. Canada has done the opposite, as reflected in declining investment and productivity in recent years.

Frustration with slow growth has driven some governments to attempt to legislate higher incomes. They have failed. The most recent example is Ontario's sharp increase in minimum wages, which was intended to raise the wages of low-income earners. Instead, labour income growth slowed in both the first and second quarters. This reflected fewer jobs in Ontario and wage restraint for other workers, as employers wrestled with keeping their overall wage bill under control.

Ontario's experience contrasts with the U.S., which showed how policies that boost business investment and GDP have succeeded in raising labour income. Amazon's recent announcement that it is voluntarily implementing a $15 an hour minimum wage demonstrates how a buoyant labour market is the best and only lasting way to raise wages.

Not all social progress results from government social policy initiatives.

Thank you.

9:10 a.m.


The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, Mr. Cross.

Next, from the National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association, is Ms. Irons.


9:10 a.m.

Leona Irons Executive Director, National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Leona Irons. I'm the executive director for the National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association.

I'm here to speak on behalf of the association, specifically to the budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2, division 19, part 4, the enactment of the addition of lands to reserves and reserve creation act.

As it is custom to our association, we would like to begin by honouring and acknowledging the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. In respect, we offer our medicines—the sweetgrass, tobacco and sage. We ask that the creator and the spirit of our ancestors grant us wisdom to speak for the benefit of our people.

I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Finance for the invitation to speak today. We look upon this as an opportunity to promote awareness of raising professional standards in first nations land management as well as to draw attention to the need for the enactment of the addition of lands to reserves and reserve creation act.

By way of background on our organization, the National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association was officially formed in 2000 as a non-profit, non-political organization. NALMA is a technical association, driven by first nation land management professionals.

Our association has eight regional lands associations, with 178 first nations and Inuit communities represented in the Atlantic region, Ontario, Quebec and Labrador, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and British Columbia. Our members operate under various land programs and regimes.

One is the reserve land and environment management program, managing first nations lands under the Indian Act. There is also the First Nations Land Management Act, a sectoral, self-government management of lands. Then there is also self-government, with full control and management of first nation lands.

NALMA and our regional lands associations work towards providing opportunities in professional development, networking and technical support to meet the existing, emerging and future needs of first nations land managers to efficiently and effectively manage their lands. For more information about our organization, please visit our website at www.nalma.ca, as well as www.coemrp.ca, the Centre of Excellence for Matrimonial Real Property.

I'll turn now to addressing issues and challenges with regard to additions to reserve.

Generally, a land manager is directly involved with the “addition to reserve” process at the community level. It's for that reason we have a vested interest in working with willing and productive partners towards improving the ATR policy.

Since 2012, NALMA has been fortunate to have participated on various committees, such as the past joint working group with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Assembly of First Nations. We're currently working on the national ATR advisory committee.

NALMA contributed to the foundation for the 2016 “addition to reserve” policy. Significant improvements were made to the policy that we believe support the community, social and economic objectives of first nations. First nations' having the ability to expand their land base enables them to take advantage of economic development opportunities, thus improving the economic, political and social well-being of their people.

Over the past18 years we've made significant progress in raising professional standards and promoting and building capacity in lands management. Last fiscal year we had the opportunity to train 800 first nations and other stakeholders and to engage with and provide technical support to well over 2,000.

We had developed a tool kit, and with the funding support of Indigenous Services Canada, we were able to update this tool kit to reflect the 2016 policy. The kit is an integrated set of printed materials, worksheets, flow charts and checklists, and its modules are designed for use by first nations and their professional associates. It should be used from the very start of the land acquisition process and continually throughout the ATR process until completion.

I'm very pleased to provide you with a copy of the ATR policy. As well, we have put together a flow chart that will give you a visual of the full ATR process. I'm leaving you also with electronic copies of the tool kit both in French and English.

This fiscal year we plan to train well over 75 first nations in the policy. We hope to complete that by the end of the fiscal year in both official languages. Reflecting the 2000 ATR policy, it has four stages in the process: the initiation stage, the assessment and review stage, the proposed completion stage and the approval stage. With the proposed amendments as outlined in division 19, part 4, it will minimize the time in each stage of the process, but more profoundly in the approval stage. It will also allow first nations to select lands with viable economic potential.

In conclusion, as NALMA is a technical professional association working towards improving efficiencies in the field of lands management, we hereby support the proposed amendments as outlined in division 19, part 4, which in plain language references the following. One, it authorizes all additions to reserve to be approved by ministerial order rather than by Governor in Council. Two, it enables first nations to designate or zone lands prior to transfer and facilitate the third party interests through leases and permits prior to the lands being added.

Lastly, I would like to commend those who have taken the time and energy to bring forth this proposed amendment. lt demonstrates that the Government of Canada is working to advance reconciliation and renew working relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and productive partnership.

Thank you again for the invitation and we look forward to positive outcomes in the days to come.


9:20 a.m.


The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much, Ms. Irons.

Appearing as an individual. we have Ms. Doucet, Canada research chair in gender, work and care. Welcome, the floor is yours.

9:20 a.m.

Professor Andrea Doucet Canada Research Chair in Gender, Work and Care, Professor of Sociology, Women's and Gender Studies, Brock University, As an Individual

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the finance committee, I'm Andrea Doucet. I'm a Canada Research Chair in Gender, Work and Care, and I'm a Professor of Sociology in Women's and Gender Studies at Brock University.

My brief comments today on Bill C-86 are focused on one key issue: parental leave benefits, and specifically the introduction of a new EI parental sharing benefit in the amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, which is in division 8 in Bill C-86.

The EI parental sharing benefit, which will be available as of March 2019, is the newest addition to Canada's current package of maternity and parental benefits. It provides an additional five parental leave weeks paid at 55% wage replacement, or eight weeks paid at 33%, to parents who share EI benefits. This includes adoptive parents and same-sex couples.

The initiative was partly modelled on the Province of Quebec's parental insurance plan, QPIP. Specifically, three to five weeks of parental leave are designated for fathers and second parents, and this has led to almost 80% of Québécois fathers now claiming parental leave. Meanwhile, outside of Quebec, only 12% of fathers are using parental leave benefits.

Gender equality at home and at work are clearly stated goals of this new benefits practice. They are laudable goals that connect more broadly to the gender equality goals of the the so-called gender equality budget, but there are two significant problems and two key differences between this policy and the Quebec policy, and they centre on wage replacement rates and issues of eligibility.

In terms of wage replacement, the wage replacement rate of 33% to 55% is too low. The Quebec rate of 70% to 75% is a successful model that is in line with international research, especially from the Nordic countries, which shows that designated leaves for fathers and higher wage replacement rates increase the number of fathers who claim parental leave.

In terms of eligibility, many couples will not qualify for the new parental sharing benefit. It is only available to two-parent families where both parents qualify for benefits. My research, with Dr. Lindsey McKay and Dr. Sophie Mathieu, published in the Journal of Industrial Relations in 2016, leads me to make the following argument.

We believe that more than one-third of all families will likely not receive this benefit. This argument is based on three important claims from our comparative analysis of mothers access to leave benefits in Quebec versus nine other provinces. We used Statistics Canada data. There was no data on people living on reserves or from the territories. It was from Quebec and the nine provinces.

My three points are the following. First, outside of Quebec, 25% of mothers do not qualify for benefits because they do not have the required 600 insurable hours in the 52 weeks prior to giving birth. Women can work their entire lives paying into EI, but if they do not have those hours in the year before birth, they don't qualify.

Second, 36% of all mothers outside of Quebec do not receive parental benefits. This is due to a combination of their ineligibility and the limitations of provincial employment standards and entitlements.

Three, over half of mothers—56%—in low-income families in these nine provinces are excluded from leave benefits. In Quebec, only 15% of low-income mothers are excluded from leave benefits.

I'll conclude with two final points.

A broader GBA+ analysis demands that we look more closely at who is excluded from the new EI parental sharing benefit. Notably, many low-income families will be excluded, and lone parents will be excluded.

Finally, my work with McKay and Mathieu argues that this new extension of parental benefits, without attending to issues of wage replacement, eligibility and access, will lead to a growing divide between what we refer to as “parental leave-rich” and “parental leave-poor”, or “care-rich” and “care-poor” households.

Thank you very much.

9:20 a.m.


The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, Ms. Doucet.

Thank you all for your presentations. There was a wide range of opinion during this particular panel.

We'll go to seven-minute rounds for the first four, and we'll start with Ms. Rudd.

9:25 a.m.

Kim Rudd Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for coming on this lovely rainy day. I have a number of questions. As the Chair mentioned, it's a very diverse group.

I'm going to start with you, Ms. Morris, with a couple of questions around your presentation from your CARP membership.

On the competition piece, we have been talking about what that looks like, and about the two organizations, one not-for-profit and one for-profit, that are the clearing house, if you will, for complaints.

When was that competition opened up? When did it go from only one not-for-profit to a for-profit model?

9:25 a.m.

Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer, Canadian Association for Retired Persons

Wanda Morris

It was around 2010. I can get back to you with the exact year.

9:25 a.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

That would be wonderful. You also mentioned that Scotiabank was the latest bank to move over to the for-profit organization.

9:25 a.m.

Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer, Canadian Association for Retired Persons

9:25 a.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

You mentioned a number of surveys and studies. Are there any specifics around costs or service disparities that may indeed have been the impetus for those banks to move?

9:25 a.m.

Prof. Andrea Doucet

That's certainly been the stated impetus for the banks leaving. It's about timeliness and effectiveness. There are four pieces of information.

In conversations with OBSI, I have learned that it was blindsided by the Scotiabank move. The ongoing meetings regarding performance, with senior officials at Scotiabank, had all been very positive.

The studies that were done in 2011 and 2016, the 2011 was much broader. It didn't find inefficiencies in OBSI. The 2016 one was more narrow. It discovered inefficiencies, but only to the extent that the process for investigation was limited in the area of investment firms. CARP has also advocated that the dispute resolver not just have the ability to make recommendations but to bind the parties to the recommendations. It's that flaw that the 2016 report said was leading to inefficiencies, not a flaw of OBSI but a flaw of the process.

In terms of the questions, I refer to the work done by Andrew Teasdale, who's an investor advocate who looked at this in detail. Noting the limitations of data—because OBSI is far more transparent in the information that it provides—he looked at the cases over the four years from 2004 to 2017, and found that 2.77 more cases were found in favour of consumers. He looked at the aspects of the claims regarding effectiveness and timeliness. Despite, for example, TD claiming that it was moving for more timeliness and efficiency, his research showed that timeliness did not occur.

9:25 a.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

Currently, what's the balance between the not-for-profit and...?

9:25 a.m.

Prof. Andrea Doucet

With the move of National Bank and Scotiabank to ADRBO, we now have 70% of consumers under ADRBO jurisdiction.

9:25 a.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

Ms. Doucet, thank you very much for your presentation. I have a couple of questions regarding your comparison outside of Quebec, meaning the rest of the country—